5. From Facts to Frames

Dominant and Alternative Meanings of Climate Change

Gwendolyn Blue

This chapter situates the specific deliberations developed by Alberta Climate Dialogue (ABCD) in the context of broader meanings, or frames, of climate change. The intent is to draw attention to the significance of framing for public deliberation with climate change and how deliberative framing can be applied to the organization of deliberations “on the ground.”

I have been involved with ABCD as a researcher and an organizer of one of the deliberations—Water in a Changing Climate. My approach to public deliberation is informed by the interpretive social sciences. From my academic vantage point, existing forms of social power matter for the ways in which people understand, discuss, and come to decisions on environmental problems. In deliberation and elsewhere, people tell stories to get a handle on a complex and uncertain world. The language we use and the stories we tell do not innocently reflect reality. Rather, our stories actively shape the ways in which we perceive, understand, and act in the world. In turn, some groups have more power than others in presenting their accounts in the public sphere. I’m curious whether public deliberation, properly designed, can assist in bringing marginalized perspectives and values into conversation with dominant perspectives and values to foster reflection about and perhaps even reorientation of dominant beliefs.

My stance toward public deliberation is critical but not dismissive. My concern with formal face-to-face public deliberation, and particularly consensus-driven initiatives, is that they can all too easily reinforce rather than call into question dominant meanings and power relations. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that exclusionary practices and unequal power relations often structure these initiatives. In relation to science-based policy issues such as climate change, technical frames of reference typically trump other meanings that citizens might bring to the table.

My concern throughout the ABCD process, in workshops and in the delivery of initiatives, was that insufficient attention was paid to issue framing in the design and implementation of deliberation. While this concern applies to both the framing of deliberation and climate change, this discussion will focus primarily on the latter. For the most part, climate change was approached as a technical problem of mitigation (i.e., efforts to reduce greenhouse gases) and of energy. The implications of considering and grappling with multiple frames of climate change were not widely explored by this research-practitioner group.

This chapter tells the story of my efforts to expand the frames of climate change in ABCD. Given space restraints, this story is necessarily partial and limited. To begin, I discuss the significance of framing for public deliberation. Next, I outline two frames of climate change: a mainstream approach that emphasizes mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through primarily market-based or technological measures; and an approach that emphasizes other policy dimensions such as adaptation (efforts to address and cope with weather and climate extremes). I illustrate how alternative frames of climate change were taken up in a one-day deliberation (Water in a Changing Climate) and discuss the implications of expanding the frames of climate change for deliberative purposes. I conclude with recommendations for future practice.

Shared Meaning: Framing Issues for Public Deliberation

In deliberative settings, citizens are typically asked to reflect on their own values as well as the values of others. The focus tends to be on an individual’s ideas, interests, and values and how these evolve through interaction and deliberation. The underlying assumption is that meaning is individual. Interpretive research tells us, however, that an individual’s values and beliefs are inherently social. The stories that we tell and the meanings that we give to particular issues are strongly influenced by shared ways of making sense of the world (Dryzek 2013). These shared meanings are issue frames that help us make sense of the world by directing our attention to certain aspects of reality and not others (Entmann 1993). Framing refers to the ways in which problems are defined, causes are diagnosed, and remedies are suggested. Framing is an inherent and normal part of communication. Since we cannot avoid framing, the best we can do is to acknowledge its effects and manage its consequences.

Research suggests that when people are generally not well informed about an issue, the ways in which information is presented heavily influences responses. For instance, a significant experiment in cognitive psychology sought to determine if framing played a role in informing consumer preferences and risk judgments (Tversky and Kahneman 1986). At the time of this experiment, it was widely believed that preferences, opinions, and judgments were largely stable and individually determined. This study demonstrated, to the contrary, that if people are presented with an uncertain situation, their preferences and attitudes change depending on the ways in which the information at hand is presented. This research raises an important question: Who or what controls the opinions, values, and “voice” of citizens if the information with which they are provided plays such a powerful role in how they think about policy issues?

In some cases, certain frames are selected to guide and control the conversation. A common political strategy is to present messages from the perspective of a narrow frame to get people to respond in a predetermined way. This approach, known as framing to persuade, involves advancing or favouring one frame over others to bring people on side. Framing to persuade is common in environmental communication, and is an increasingly popular strategy in climate communication (Lakoff 2010).

When issues are framed for persuasion purposes, the arguments and courses of action are established in advance and the focus is largely instrumental. By contrast, framing for deliberation seeks to present and clarify different ways of approaching an issue to help people weigh appropriate courses of action (Friedman 2007; Calvert and Warren 2014). The goal is largely substantive, which is to say that this type of framing is intended to help people come up with potentially innovative solutions that they wouldn’t have reached prior to engaging with one another. Presented with a diverse range of frames from the outset, people are better equipped to make sense of competing values and arguments and not be “boxed in” by a singular approach.

Formalized public engagement initiatives can limit policy options by offering a small range of options to participants from the outset (Pallett and Chilvers 2013) or by enabling framing effects wherein dominant frames shut down other possibilities and lead to a premature closing down of policy options (Calvert and Warren 2014). Although multiple and conflicting issue frames are present in any policy discussion, dominant frames can limit the discussion because they appear to be taken for granted, as the way things are, rather than as contestable policy options. Dominant frames can lead to framing effects which include groupthink, premature closure of options, or forced consensus.

Framing effects can be avoided or mitigated in formal public deliberation if the process accounts for different frames in the design, implementation, and delivery of initiatives. For instance, organizations such as the National Issues Forums (NIF) use a choice work frame that presents multiple perspectives on policy issues (Friedman 2007; Kadlec and Friedman 2007). Issue guides provide participants with an overview of dominant and alternative frames of a policy issue, and the values that are contained therein. By presenting multiple perspectives on an issue, the NIF enables a more deliberative approach to political engagement than would be possible if only one issue frame were presented. This approach can also facilitate a deeper reflection among deliberative practitioners, scientific experts, bureaucrats, and policy makers on their own existing assumptions and values (Pallett and Chilvers 2013).

Framing Climate Change for Deliberation

Although climate change is a complex issue with many different policy frames, a dominant frame circulates among policy makers, scientists, civil society groups, and citizens. It is the frame most commonly encountered in the media, in social activism campaigns, and in government policy. This frame provides a readily recognizable story in which the problem of human-caused climate change is connected specifically to GHG emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, and warrants responses such as technological, market-based, or behavioural change. The dominant frame of climate change privileges the knowledge of scientists, engineers, and other experts such as economists (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). It emphasizes incremental reforms rather than radical changes to existing systems. An increasing number of activists and academics highlight the limitations of this approach for addressing climate change, and the need to provide alternative frames for public consideration (Klein 2014; Hulme, 2009; Dawson 2010).

To understand how this dominant frame emerged, a brief history is in order. In the 1970s and 1980s, networks of scientists and government experts played a key role in putting climate change on international and national political agendas (Bulkeley et al. 2014). In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization was initially charged with providing an assessment of relevant research to direct policy. After its first assessment process, the IPCC presented its summary reports as providing scientific information that informs but does not give direction on the actions policy makers should take. The first report of the IPCC (released in 1990) became the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. By the end of this conference, the FCCC was signed by 154 states and entered into force in March 1994. The FCCC is the legal instrument of the global climate regime. Its mandate is to work toward stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change. Negotiations under the FCCC led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 as well as the Copenhagen Accord in 2009.

The mandate of the FCCC emphasizes mitigation of dangerous climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions, and this mandate has had a strong influence on the ways in which climate change is approached at national and regional levels. One of the reasons that mitigation is highlighted in the FCCC is that lessons were drawn from previous global environmental policy responses, such as ozone depletion, in which mitigation measures were successful (Pielke 1998). Another explanation is that the emphasis on mitigation was in keeping with the interests of wealthy industrialized countries and not with those regions in which the effects of climate change were already being experienced. As Okereke explains, the focus on mitigation in the FCCC can be attributed to concerns by wealthier states “that an emphasis on adaptation would greatly provoke questions of responsibility, liability and the polluter pays principle—all of which they were anxious to avoid during the negotiation process” (Okereke 2008, 105–6).

The IPCC is based on a linear model of scientific expertise, which is to say that the interactions between science and policy are unidirectional, with the assumption that science informs policy by speaking truth to power. At first glance, the basic logic of such an approach is sensible. The relevant facts about climate change should be established before deciding what policies to implement. In following a linear model of expertise, however, politically relevant questions are often framed in a way that detaches expertise from its political and cultural contexts. The types of policy measures that follow tend also to be highly technical in nature. Propelled by a belief in the neutrality of science, the IPCC typically avoids addressing value-based decisions and openly advocating or rejecting policy options. The linear model of expertise also tends to stifle discussions about alternative policy options, some of which might radically challenge existing status quo practices. As such, climate change tends to be framed as a relatively tame problem that can be solved by technological solutions or market-based mechanisms that keep broader political and economic systems in place.

To date, there has been little public discussion of the assumptions and value commitments embedded within this dominant frame of climate change. This can be attributed in large part to the complexity of climate science and the highly specialized bodies of expert scientific knowledge through which it has been understood (Demeritt 2001, 2006).

ABCD concentrated most of its efforts on this dominant frame of climate change, namely, by examining the intersections between climate and energy, with an attendant focus on mitigation. An alternative approach is to consider climate change as a nexus that connects water, food, and energy (O’Riordan and Sandford 2015). From this perspective, adaptation is also a viable response. While there is no question that mitigation strategies are necessary to address climate change, many argue that we have passed the point at which mitigation measures alone are sufficient (Craig 2010). Mitigation efforts at global and national levels have proven largely ineffective as carbon emissions continue to rise. The global warming experienced so far is already driving climatic change in regions around the world, and this change is expected to accelerate in the future. Moreover, the changes that will happen will have dramatic and, in many cases, unpredictable consequences.

As a matter of international law, climate change adaptation is a key component of the FCCC. Yet compared to mitigation, adaptation has not received the same level of attention from policy makers, civil society groups, the media, or the general public. Part of this is due to the historical marginalization of adaptation in global discussions of climate change. Some reasons for lack of attention to adaptation are that it is associated with passive acceptance or fatalism, that it will take attention away from mitigation, that it is not in the interests of northern industrialized regions, and that its inherently local characteristics make it difficult to distinguish regional or local climate impacts from global circulation models (Pielke 1998; Rayner and Malone 1998). These assumptions are changing, however, and adaptation is increasingly receiving more attention at global and local levels, particularly in regions where the effects of climate change are already being experienced.

In dominant frames of climate change, adaptation tends to be seen as a tag-on to mitigation, and risk-based, technical approaches are common (Khan and Roberts 2013). Alternative approaches to both adaptation and mitigation highlight their social dimensions by foregrounding inequality and the need for justice to address the causes and consequences of climate change (Hackman, Moser, and St. Clair 2014).

Alternative Frames for Climate Change: A Pilot Project

The one-day event, Water in a Changing Climate, was an attempt to bring an alternative frame of climate change into ABCD deliberations. The intent of the panel was to expand the frames of climate change in the design and execution of the deliberation and to widen the geographical reach of ABCD’s face-to-face deliberations to include rural populations. Our initial hope was that we could help participants transcend the common assumption that climate change is a distant risk in space and time. Linking climate change with water helped us focus on the tangible dimension of global environmental change. Some of the most pronounced and harmful impacts of global climate change are experienced through water. Communities in Alberta currently struggle with water-related challenges, including droughts, flooding, water pollution, and depletion of groundwater. These issues are compounded by global climate change (Henderson and Sauchyn 2008).

It is important to take note of some important parameters of this panel from the outset. First, limited resources meant that we were only able to deliver this as a one-off initiative. Since we did not have the opportunity to test this design or to build on our learnings, this event should be understood as a pilot project and not as a best-case example. In turn, our partner, the Oldman Watershed Council, had limited time and resources to devote to the event. These constraints reflect real world conditions in which cash-strapped institutions and time-strapped individuals are tasked with designing and delivering public engagement. Understanding these constraints from the outset can hopefully redirect the tendency of those who seek to place blame for any shortcomings on individuals or institutions. Second, unlike the other deliberative initiatives ABCD members were involved in, this deliberation did not have a pressing policy framework or decision. Indeed, the absence of an existing policy framework provided us with flexibility with respect to how we framed climate change.

A core partner for this project was the Oldman Watershed Council (OWC), a not-for-profit organization in southern Alberta, mandated by the provincial government to provide guidance around the management and health of the Oldman Basin. In Alberta, and in Canada more broadly, a common approach to environmental governance of water is one that focuses on a specific area of land that drains water to a shared destination. A “watershed approach,” as it is called, is central to the Alberta government’s Water for Life strategy as well as the province’s emergent land use strategy. As part of the Water for Life strategy, Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACs) have been established in major watershed basins. These councils are multi-stakeholder, non-profit organizations that assess watershed conditions and develop management plans. The OWC’s sixteen-member board of directors has representation from rural municipalities, academia, irrigation districts, environmental NGOs, the agricultural industry, First Nations communities, and the federal government.

Citizen engagement is central to the mandate for WPACs (Alberta Water Portal 2017), although the OWC faces several challenges with respect to public engagement. In the past, public engagement has defaulted to town hall–style public meetings that tend to attract “usual suspects” and “worried spies” rather than a broader diverse constituency (Frank 2013). The OWC expressed a desire to learn more about deliberation as a possible avenue for broadening their approach to citizen engagement.

Prior to the panel, the project manager, Erin Navid, and I developed a discussion guide to provide participants with an overview of three different frames of climate change. These frames were drawn from existing literature on climate change and were presented as a starting point for discussion. The frames were described as follows:

Climate change as a problem that can be solved: Climate change is a problem that humans can and should solve through reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Dangerous climate change can be prevented through technology, markets, or behavioural changes.

Climate change as an issue of justice: Approaching climate change as an issue of justice means thinking about the ways in which people and other living creatures are vulnerable to weather and climate. This perspective addresses the human and cultural, as well as physical components of climate change. Reducing greenhouse gases is important but not sufficient to address climate change. Building resilience to weather and climatic changes, confronting social inequality, and addressing stewardship for the natural world are also significant.

Climate change as a force of nature: This perspective emphasizes forces that influence the climate that are outside of human control. People who hold this perspective tend to believe that there is little we can do to prevent climate change. These people also tend to be skeptical of information that suggests otherwise.

The first perspective represents a dominant approach to climate change, although it was not described as such. The second represents a social justice frame that includes issues of adaptation. The third represents what is typically called the “denier” position. These frames represent different policy directions and assumptions but are by no means the only ways in which climate change could be approached. For example, mitigation can also encompass justice issues, and adaptation can be understood from a technical perspective. These frames are also not discrete in that people can hold several of these beliefs at the same time.

These three frames were used as a warm-up exercise wherein participants were asked to align themselves in the room based on where they felt they fit within these different approaches. Most participants aligned with the first frame. The remainder aligned with the social justice frame. Only two participants aligned themselves with the third frame, which views climate change as a force of nature.

The morning session was then dedicated to a discussion of the collective concerns about water and climate change in the region. The lead facilitator and designer of the deliberation, Jacquie Dale, with assistance from the table facilitators, categorized these concerns into the following themes: land use pressures; environment and public health; extreme weather events; governance; and social justice and responsibility. Synthesizing the diverse perspectives that emerged from the morning session into discrete categories was a challenging task.

In the afternoon session, participants were instructed to form groups based on which themes they found the most appealing. They were also asked to provide direction for the OWC in moving forward. The recommendations emerging from the afternoon sessions included:

• Encourage regulation at a local level.
• Provide more education and information about how to deal with extreme weather events.
• Standardize emergency response plans, with timely and easy-to-access information
• Explore incentives to promote conservation and effective use of water.
• Foster individual stewardship for development of the common good.
• Support sustainable farming and agriculture, particularly in urban contexts.

Overall, the panel highlighted the importance of education, information, and communication as well as the significance and challenge of fostering collective responsibility for environmental protection. The following values were identified as central: healthy environment, public safety, stewardship, and collective responsibility.

The initial concern with social justice did not make it directly into the final recommendations, for reasons that are largely unknown. Although speculative, a partial explanation might be that participants were instructed by the OWC to provide practical and tangible advice moving forward and social justice is difficult to fit within this directive. Differing facilitation skills across the individual table facilitators may also be part of the challenge of drawing out the implications of this frame for action. Devoting more time overall to the social justice dimensions of climate change, through facilitator training, the background document, and invited speakers, might have supported participants in relating the justice frame to specific recommendations for action.

While this citizen panel enabled a broader framing beyond the dominant frame of climate change, it had significant limitations. As mentioned previously, the alternative framing was possible because the initiative was not tethered to an existing policy conversation. While this offered freedom to explore alternative frames, it lacked policy relevancy. The one-off nature of the event meant that there was also no opportunity to build on the results to further collective learning, for instance, about the design and the frames that were deployed. It would have been useful to include the OWC board more directly in the discussion to understand range of values that they bring to the policy and management strategies they put forth.

Another significant shortcoming of this initiative is that we did not address Indigenous world views of human–environment relations in our initial framings. It is well recognized that public deliberation initiatives—particularly those that are consensus oriented—can play a powerful role in silencing marginalized perspectives (Young 2000). This is not to say that efforts were not made to bring Indigenous perspectives into the event. For instance, an image created by one of the panel participants, who received an additional honorarium for its development and use, was central in the event’s communications. The image conveyed a message about the deep significance of water and culture from a local Blackfoot perspective. According to its illustrator, the image portrays future generations who must learn the importance of water and the environment. The background is in the shape of a hide which is typically used to document the histories and stories of Blackfoot peoples. In addition to this image, the panel began with a prayer by the designer of this image, who acknowledged the dual settler and First Nations governance of the area. These small gestures for inclusion could have been strengthened by drawing on Indigenous expertise in framing climate change and weather–related challenges from the outset. Providing a range of expertise on Indigenous world views, in addition to the views of climate scientists, would have fostered a more inclusive process that broadened even further the types of issues presented to participants. More critical attention to structural issues of inequality is also warranted, not only in terms of the design and delivery of deliberation but also in terms of the frames and assumptions about public deliberation that were deployed by ABCD. An absence of attention to issues of power means that public deliberation in practice can serve to reinforce rather than challenge existing social patterns of inequality.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to draw attention to the various ways in which climate change can be framed and the implications for public deliberation. Frames are central to the ways in which we understand policy problems in terms of their causes and potential solutions. In deliberative settings, people must have a genuine opportunity to discuss, propose, and promote alternative frames. If deliberation is structured around a dominant or singular frame, people can feel disenfranchised and are more likely to disengage from the deliberative process. Although this explanation is speculative, a limited framing of climate change and of public deliberation might be one reason why this research process struggled to engage and retain a broader constituency of interested participants. Anecdotally, I know of several people who left this research collaboration because they felt that their concerns and perspectives on climate change and democratic engagement were not represented or valued by the group.

Opening deliberation to a range of frames is a significant part of the democratic process for substantive reasons. Frames are continuously reconstructed and reimagined as new participants, novel perspectives, observations, values, and world views are drawn into the mix. Different ways of knowing and experiencing environmental problems emerge from divergent social locations and experiences. This diversity is not a problem to be overcome but is a generative part of public responses to climate policy directives.

The core recommendation of this chapter is that, at minimum, organizers responsible for convening public deliberation on climate change make efforts to identify the range of available frames of climate change and to acknowledge the frames that they hold personally. This demands familiarity with not only the science of climate change but also the cultural and historical dimensions of this pressing policy issue. The interpretive social sciences and humanities are important allies in this regard (Blue 2015). Those interested in interpretive approaches to public deliberation with climate change can explore my work further (see, for instance, Blue 2015; Blue and Dale 2016; Blue 2017) and to contact me to learn about current unpublished initiatives.

While the temptation to gloss over issue framing is considerable, doing so presents significant problems. Considerable differences exist in the ways in which climate change is approached and interpreted, not only between expert and lay communities but also within academic communities. Providing participants with limited policy frames circumscribes the democratic potential of public deliberation. Practical constraints should not be used as a justification for avoiding the difficult task of grappling with the implications of framing and its effects on public deliberation with climate change.

References

Alberta Water Portal. 2017. Accessed March 21. http://albertawater.com/work/alberta-water-community/wpacs.

Blue, Gwendolyn. 2015. “Framing Climate Change for Public Deliberation: What Role for the Interpretive Social Sciences and Humanities?” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 18(1): 67–84.

———.2017. “Participatory and Deliberative Approaches to Climate Change.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Change. Accessed November 9, 2017, from http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-397.

Blue, Gwendolyn, and Jacquie Dale. 2016. “Framing and Power in Public Deliberation with Climate Change: Critical Reflections on the Role of Deliberative Practitioners.” Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(1): art. 2. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss1/art2/.

Bulkeley, Harriet, Liliana Andonova, Michele Betsill, Daniel Compagnon, Thomas Hale, Matthew Hoffman, Peter Newell, Matthew Peterson, Charles Roger, and Stacy Vandeveer. 2014. Transnational Climate Change Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Calvert, Aubre, and Mark Warren. 2014. “Deliberative Democracy and Framing Effects: Why Frames are a Problem and How Deliberative Mini-publics Might Overcome Them.” In Deliberative Mini-publics: Involving Citizens in the Deliberative Process, edited by K. Grönlund, A Bächtiger, and M Setälä, 203–24. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.

Craig, Robin. 2010. “‘Stationarity is Dead’– Long Live Transformation: Five Priniciples for Climate Change Law.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 34: 9–15.

Dawson, Ashley. 2010. “Climate Justice: The Emerging Movement against Green Capitalism.” South Atlantic Quarterly 109(2): 313–38.

Demeritt, David. 2001. “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): 307–37.

———. 2006. “Science Studies, Climate Change and the Prospects for Constructivist Critique.” Economy and Society 35: 453–79.

Dryzek, John. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Entmann, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Toward the Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

Frank, Shannon. 2013. Personal Communication with Author.

Friedman, Will. 2007. “Reframing Framing.” Occasional Working Paper. Public Agenda Center for Advances in Public Engagement.

Hackman, Heide, Susanne Moser, and Asuncion Lera St. Clair. 2014. “The Social at the Heart of Global Environmental Change.” Nature Climate Change 4: 653–55.

Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg. 2005. “A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7(3): 175–84.

Henderson, Norman, and David Sauchyn. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Canada’s Prairie Provinces: A Summary of Our State of Knowledge. Regina: Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative.

Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kadlec, Amy, and Will Friedman. 2007. “Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Power.” Journal of Public Deliberation 3: 1–26.

Khan, Mizan, and Timmons Roberts. 2013. “Adaptation and International Climate Policy.” WIRES Climate Change 4(3): 171–89.

Klein, Naomi. 2014. This Changes Everything: Capitalism Versus the Climate. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Lakoff, George. 2010. “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 4: 70–81.

Okereke, Chukwumerije. 2008. Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance. London: Routledge.

O’Riordan, Jon, and Robert Sandford. 2015. The Climate Nexus: Water, Food, Energy and Biodiversity in a Changing World. Calgary: Rocky Mountain Books.

Pallett, Helen, and Jason Chilvers. 2013. “A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?” Environment and Planning A 45(5): 1162–83.

Pielke, Roger, Jr. 1998. “Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy.” Global Environmental Change 8(2): 159–70.

Rayner, Steve, and Elisabeth Malone. 1998. “Ten Suggestions for Policy Makers.” In Human Choice and Climate Change, An International Assessment, Volume 4: What Have We Learned?, edited by Steve Rayner and Elisabeth Malone, 3–32. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business 59: 251–72.

Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.